Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr Paul Tucker Q.C. and Mr Anthony Gill (instructed by Squire Sanders LLP) for the Claimant Mr Richard Kimblin (instructed by Legal and Elections Manager, Rugby Borough Council) for the Defendant Mr David Elvin Q.C. and Ms Sonal Barot (instructed by Nabarro LLP) for the Interested Party Hearing date: 10 December 2013 ____________________
(1) whether the Council, having issued a negative screening opinion for Hammerson's proposal in September 2011, breached the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 ("the 2011 EIA regulations") by deciding it was not required to issue a further screening opinion for the revised proposal in November 2012; and, if so, whether, in the exercise of its discretion, the court should quash the planning permission;
(3) whether the Council erred in law in concluding that the proposed development met the sequential test for proposed retail development, as was required by paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF");
(4) whether the Council erred in law in concluding that the proposed development complied with policy for the assessment of the impact of proposed retail development, in paragraph 26 of the NPPF;
(5) whether the Council erred in law in failing to take the application for planning permission back to the committee after it received CBRE Lionbrook's letter of 17 June 2013; and
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.